Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Ove Interest?
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:38:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <vor1g7$70t2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <kl2rqjhtclsfcouku8s511rrr9o0ddm9s8@4ax.com>
 <vol2bc$2uqgd$1@dont-email.me> <vonsp7$3hmi0$9@dont-email.me>
 <vonuj5$3htuk$3@dont-email.me> <vop413$3ojl2$4@dont-email.me>
 <voq66s$1vl7$2@dont-email.me> <m1bnsbFl7s3U1@mid.individual.net>
 <voqitv$4aek$2@dont-email.me> <voqnbk$59iv$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: frkrygow@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:38:17 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8fa9b9b132d165541fed2e4229e40b8";
	logging-data="230306"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/OGB0uvEO0e0bmFOClV2H47jY6AptWuOM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jBvvAfkkh/drULzUQPQRcktxvm8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <voqnbk$59iv$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6091

On 2/15/2025 1:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/15/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/15/2025 9:49 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy
>>>> Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
>>>> manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
>>>> contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
>>>> (those constituting the definition of a vaccine).  Neither
>>>> is actually true.
>>>>
>>>> The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
>>>> check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who 
>>> well does
>>> like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie 
>>> keeping
>>> folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability, 
>>> but
>>> also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
>>> that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being
>>> overwhelmed.
>>
>> As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the vaccine and 
>> social distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall any statements 
>> that the vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing contagion, and 
>> I'd be very surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are 
>> 100% effective.
>>
>> There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking about Covid. 
>> People on one side of politics seem to forget that when infections 
>> first spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly 
>> healthy people were dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage 
>> tents were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an 
>> unknown and was causing great damage.
>>
>> Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But that's a 
>> normal part of science: People do research, publish findings, others 
>> try to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given the crisis at 
>> hand, health and government officials were not wrong to bet on safety, 
>> even if some of the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately 
>> turned out to have low value.
>>
>> People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a tendency 
>> toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them _all_ science is 
>> useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are useless. One bad 
>> politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless - except their 
>> own, of course.
>>
>> The world is a bit more complicated than that.
>>
>>
> 
> https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-booster-shots- 
> speech-briefing-transcript

That's a pretty long reading assignment. But skimming it, I didn't see 
where he claimed 100% protection. Again, AFAIK no vaccine does 100%. I 
don't think it was ever promised or anticipated by anyone with decent 
knowledge.

> 
> Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you exaggerate above, 
> none of them correspond here on RBT. Many people, I included, think any 
> assertion, scientific or otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing 
> and corroboration.  Sadly, this is now a critical existential issue 
> among the sciences as errors in published papers, forcing withdrawal, is 
> skyrocketing, whether due to outright fraud or rank incompetence. There 
> are hardly enough people replicating procedures to verify conclusions in 
> scientific papers and if there were more that would likely expose yet 
> more error.

It would help if you would give relevant examples. Yes, I'm aware that 
there is and has been scientific fraud. But it's a small percentage of 
the output of Science, and it doesn't mean that we should pretend the 
entire mechanism of science should be ignored.

As far as people on RBT espousing the views I paraphrased, most people 
are careful to make implications rather than outright statements. You 
have made many, many remarks disparaging various laws with words like 
"How's that law working out?"  Was I wrong to interpret that as "Laws 
don't work"?

Our bike path tricycle rider has many times disparaged almost all 
sources of information - except, somehow, the ones he chooses to listen to.

John has many times implied that all? or most? studies are biased to 
worthlessness, repeating his anecdote about a man who claimed he can 
make any study yield whatever data is desired.

Tom goes so far as to claim that there was a major recession and stock 
market crash during Obama's term, despite mountains of info proving that 
false.

> 
> And in the instant case, politicians should also not be exempt from 
> inquiry, testing and verification of their assertions.
> 


-- 
- Frank Krygowski